Actually one can't do more than that even in physics. That's what all the models ONLY do. LG@William said:
But what a composer who creates a great lasting work does is something else entirely. It reminds me of all the attempts to explain consciousness, including those by the most prominent scientists. They never explain it - they only describe it in more or less detail.
-
-
Causal descriptions are stilL ONLY descrriptions. The only difference between physics and other sciences is that the models in physics are more basic having more description power. But there are never any explanations behind those models (or theories). LG@William said:
No that is not true. There are many causal relationships in physics that are actually explanatory. In psychology there are NONE.
-
That is untrue according to classical physics which functions highly accurately on a macroscopic level. You are attempting to use quantum mechanics in the wrong context.
Also, you do not understand what the word "description" means. I am referring to a re-statement in different terms, not a causal explanation. To deny causality on a macroscopic level is nonsense. And to compare physics, with its precise models of celestial mechanics for example, to the neurobiology of consciousness studies is ludicrous. These are separate universes of thought with almost no comparison possible. If you do not see the differences, you are ignoring them deliberately, perhaps because you are attempting a deconstructionist reductionism. Which is fine, if that particular form of nonsense turns you on.
-
Well. You can't explain the behavior of humans but only describe and you can't explain anything by using models (theories) of physic but only describe. Of course the describtions are different if you have an organic system having billions of billions of structured molecule systems or on the other hand a single particle or particle system.
Physics is based on empiricism and music analysis is not. Without any proof there is no reason to deny that computer can compose. One could only disproof the hypothesis empirically.
-
"Physics is based on empiricism and music analysis is not." - lgrohn
I agree with that. I do not agree that physical models are mere descriptions however, because of one simple fact: mathematics can predict physical relationships to the tiniest decimal point of accuracy in the macroscopic world, though this breaks down at a sub-atomic level. However, it can do NOTHING for human psychology and that is my point.
I don't deny that a computer can compose music, but the question is, what is the program? Is it random? Then the fact that a computer is doing it is meaningless. Is it tied to a human being's thought or feelings? Then it may be an interesting extension. If the computer has artificial intelligence of its own, then it may be a new form of music. But this has not demonstrably happened yet. Though I will find it quite interesting when it does.
-
Brilliant exchange between William and LG.
When I refer to the art and science of composition, by science I mean rudimentary devices such as canon, fuge, 4 part writing, formal structures and so on. In that sense it's scientific as one would use tools working with wood (although a better analogy might be found.) Anyway when these devices are not employed or understood it often shows as weaknesses but not always. I would venture to say most need or would benefit from this science in music writing.
-
Anyway when these devices are not employed or understood it often shows as weaknesses but not always. I would venture to say most need or would benefit from this science in music writing.
It depends. If a young person studying composing using many years of his liffe just for learning old cultural artefact it may happen that he/she just keeps on that the rest of his life, actually useless life a a composer creating nothing new but just emulating.
-
creating nothing new but just emulating
...except when the individual has such strong creative feelings that his/hers 'luggage' will give better understanding of the past and stimulate innovation.
-
Musical composition is NOT a mere combination of inherited cultural cliches and randomness.
What did you leave out of the equation?
THE COMPOSER'S MIND.
Does that exist? Are you a composer? Does your mind exist? Is there anything in there besides randomness and a storage mechanism for cultural cliches?
I am beginning to think that you do not believe that the composer's mind does anything other than the two operations of memory and random noise generator. If so, you ought to explain what creates the difference between a great composer and a lousy one. You probably believe it is an accident, correct?
-
No, accurate numeric values are not mere numerical description because they can be used to predict elements and outcomes that have not yet transpired. A description is incapable of this, but an explanation with a mathematic basis is. You are still not separating this distinction of meaning, or if you are and deny it you are in error.
-
One more thing [8o|] ---
Studying past music is not a mere acquisition of "cultural artifacts" as you dismissively term them. Do you study history at all? Do you know the value of this study?
I seriously wonder based upon your statements. You seem to think that completely discarding the past will give people freedom. But ignorance of it dooms people to merely repeat it. That is the greatest loss of freedom - the repetition of past mistakes. There is far greater freedom with an acute, even close study and awareness of the past and the creative use of its accomplishments in new ways.
-
-
Using the map metaphor, one can predit what is between Wien and Budabest... And what is between W and n in "Wien".@William said:
No, accurate numeric values are not mere numerical description because they can be used to predict elements and outcomes that have not yet transpired. A description is incapable of this, but an explanation with a mathematic basis is. You are still not separating this distinction of meaning, or if you are and deny it you are in error.
-
@lgrohn said:
Actually you are "refering" only to cultural artefacts. That kind of taxonomy doesn't have much to do with science. Well it has much to do with "sciences" some hundred years ago
Don't you want the doors to work where you live? Like a good old fashioned door? Most music requires structure, so if you're building it you should understand what strong and weak structure is. This is what Schoenberg taught and he broke with tonality. You may be working with computers under totally different criteria and won't be writing a fuge any time soon. That's fine but I don't think it disqualifies those who use and view that device as a musical and not cultural one.
-
All right, lgrohn, then I agree that the cliches and randomness are combined with something else.
However that is a misuse of "predict" - prediction such as that based upon celestial mechanics involves temporal changes that do not pre-exist (except in another part of the space-time continuum which may be in flux and therefore not describable without causality) whereas prediction of the sort you mention with a map involves no causality and is a fixed pattern that is merely being observed - or described as I previously used the word - in time.
-
Right.
The value of learning, and the assumption that historical music study is the 'raking over of dusty artifacts' is something that, as William says, is a key to avoiding the repetitive circle we seem to be going in musically at this moment in time. We've just had an interesting dicussion in another thread about the 'sameness' of much of today's modern orchestral ideas, and how new ideas are thin on the ground. I think it's because access to technology and market forces are putting so much pressure on composers, that perceptions are built of the 'only way' to succeed, and the steadily narrowing focus of that perception. I also think historical study has been a victim of the technology as more and more buyers of computers, and musical enthusiasts try their luck. DG made a point a little while ago about there being more composers, but no greater level of great music.
And to use your own thinking on this Laurie, the study of historical artifacts is a science in itself, but only part of the picture.
Folk songs, for example, are often stories set to music of adventure and emotion, and relationships, and love, and all that other stuff, that neither you, or the best minds in history have been able to quantify into a science, and provide an explanation for. And as try as you might, the premise that music can be reduced to the same mathematical equative benchmark as the path of neutrons or cosmological speculation is pointless and invalid.
Because that mindset that removes emotion and the unquantifiable from music effectively renders it dead.
And it's been tried in the past, so your argument of comparing music to physics is in itself a 'relic' and 'pointless artifact' as much as studying Mozart or Beethoven. They remain popular with millions and millions because their music evokes an emotional response, and triggers memories, both unquantifiable and unable to be so mercilessly shoved in the 'understood' and scientifically explainable box.
If you think you can reduce and explain away musical output to the equivalent of a paper on Quantum mechanics, go right ahead. You'll be emulating many before you who tried the same thing. Your opinion is important the same as theirs was. They ended up covered in the dust of historical derision, and forgotten almost as soon as they started.
'Cultural cliche' is just another catchall name, so popular in todays fast, image chasing world. Like collatteral damage, or democracy. So easy to say, and so hard to pin down. Which culture? One or more than one? Did you gather this viewpoint from listening to orchestras or watching the Simpsons? Where's your proof, and importantly, are you referring to GREAT music, or cliche ridden music? Can you honestly say the Planets suite is cliche ridden? Didn't holst define what we percieve now as music for the stars? Yet he is one of your cultural artifacts, to be dismissed as irrelavent.
You've commented before about the randomness of the music you're trying to 'create.' Don't you realise it's been done before? In the 50's and 60'? When a good chunk of the world was spreading free love and a lot of dope, there were musicians who were determined to 'define' a completely new direction, disconnected from the structure so enjoyed by so many?
Do we play their 'music' these days?
Interesting discussion, and although i respect your right to your views Laurie, i actually enjoy studying the masters, and get a thrill out of writing new music as a result of that study. Music that's never been heard before. Your argument would be i am emulating the artifacts. My response is one of dismissive exclamation, as I listen to something i've created, and enjoy the emotional response i get from listening, be it happy, sad, angry, or dissatisfied.
Regards to you all,
Alex.
-
Thoser are good points by Dave and Alex. However I find lgrohn's ideas interesting and particularly his concept of the visual generation of musical tones. Also, quantum mechanics is not predictable and reducible to formula - it is alarmingly unpredictable and weird. Something like the human brain and that "something else" in between randomness and cliches that lgrohn mentions.
-
Far be it from me to be critical or suspicious of a new musical approach. I've heard some of LG's music and liked it. Even randomness displays the wonder of the universe because it is a sampling of it. There is so much inherent beauty in the world that any sort of display of it will touch and show it in various degrees.